The historical foundations of the research-practice distinction in bioethics

Heoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (1):45-56 (2012)

Authors
Tom Beauchamp
Georgetown University
Yashar Saghai
Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
The distinction between clinical research and clinical practice directs how we partition medicine and biomedical science. Reasons for a sharp distinction date historically to the work of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, especially to its analysis of the “boundaries” between research and practice in the Belmont Report (1978). Belmont presents a segregation model of the research-practice distinction, according to which research and practice form conceptually exclusive sets of activities and interventions. This model is still the standard in federal regulations today. However, the Commission’s deliberations and conclusions about the boundaries are more complicated, nuanced, and instructive than has generally been appreciated. The National Commission did not conclude that practice needs no oversight comparable to the regulation of research. It debated the matter and inclined to the view that the oversight of practice needed to be upgraded, though the Commission stopped short of proposing new regulations for its oversight, largely for prudential political reasons.
Keywords Belmont Report  Research  Practice  Innovative treatment  IRBs  History of medical ethics  Nonvalidated treatment  Politics of bioethics  Research ethics  Regulation
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11017-011-9207-8
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Clarifying the Concepts of Research Ethics.Robert J. Levine - 1979 - Hastings Center Report 9 (3):21-26.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rethinking the Belmont Report?Phoebe Friesen, Lisa Kearns, Barbara Redman & Arthur L. Caplan - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics 17 (7):15-21.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Right to Withdraw From Research.G. Owen Schaefer & Alan Wertheimer - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):329-352.
Report on the National Commission: Good as Gold. [REVIEW]George J. Annas - 1980 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 8 (6):4-4.
The Ethics of Research on Enhancement Interventions.Lev Ori, G. Miller Franklin & J. Emanuel Ezekiel - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):101-113.
Responsible Conduct of Research.Adil E. Shamoo - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Alive and Well: The Research Imperative.Rebecca Dresser - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):915-921.
The History of Bioethics: Implications for Current Debates in Health Research.R. E. McWhirter - 2012 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (3):329-338.
Ethics, Regulation, and Biomedical Research.Matthew Weed - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):361-368.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-07-02

Total views
398 ( #11,946 of 2,248,766 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
64 ( #9,307 of 2,248,766 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature